Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Lo Vecchio A, Liguoro I, Dias JA, Berkley JA, Boey C, Cohen MB, et al.
    Vaccine, 2017 Mar 14;35(12):1637-1644.
    PMID: 28216189 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.082
    BACKGROUND: Rotavirus (RV) is a major agent of gastroenteritis and an important cause of child death worldwide. Immunization (RVI) has been available since 2006, and the Federation of International Societies of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (FISPGHAN) identified RVI as a top priority for the control of diarrheal illness. A FISPGHAN working group on acute diarrhea aimed at estimating the current RVI coverage worldwide and identifying barriers to implementation at local level.

    METHODS: A survey was distributed to national experts in infectious diseases and health-care authorities (March 2015-April 2016), collecting information on local recommendations, costs and perception of barriers for implementation.

    RESULTS: Forty-nine of the 79 contacted countries (62% response rate) provided a complete analyzable data. RVI was recommended in 27/49 countries (55%). Although five countries have recommended RVI since 2006, a large number (16, 33%) included RVI in a National Immunization Schedule between 2012 and 2014. The costs of vaccination are covered by the government (39%), by the GAVI Alliance (10%) or public and private insurance (8%) in some countries. However, in most cases, immunization is paid by families (43%). Elevated cost of vaccine (49%) is the main barrier for implementation of RVI. High costs of vaccination (rs=-0.39, p=0.02) and coverage of expenses by families (rs=0.5, p=0.002) significantly correlate with a lower immunization rate. Limited perception of RV illness severity by the families (47%), public-health authorities (37%) or physicians (24%) and the timing of administration (16%) are further major barriers to large- scale RVI programs.

    CONCLUSIONS: After 10years since its introduction, the implementation of RVI is still unacceptably low and should remain a major target for global public health. Barriers to implementation vary according to setting. Nevertheless, public health authorities should promote education for caregivers and health-care providers and interact with local health authorities in order to implement RVI.

    Matched MeSH terms: Rotavirus Vaccines/administration & dosage*
  2. Loganathan T, Ng CW, Lee WS, Hutubessy RCW, Verguet S, Jit M
    Health Policy Plan, 2018 Mar 01;33(2):204-214.
    PMID: 29228339 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czx166
    Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) based on the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) are extensively used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lacking locally defined CETs. These thresholds were originally intended for global and regional prioritization, and do not reflect local context or affordability at the national level, so their value for informing resource allocation decisions has been questioned. Using these thresholds, rotavirus vaccines are widely regarded as cost-effective interventions in LMICs. However, high vaccine prices remain a barrier towards vaccine introduction. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, affordability and threshold price of universal rotavirus vaccination at various CETs in Malaysia. Cost-effectiveness of Rotarix and RotaTeq were evaluated using a multi-cohort model. Pan American Health Organization Revolving Fund's vaccine prices were used as tender price, while the recommended retail price for Malaysia was used as market price. We estimate threshold prices defined as prices at which vaccination becomes cost-effective, at various CETs reflecting economic theories of human capital, societal willingness-to-pay and marginal productivity. A budget impact analysis compared programmatic costs with the healthcare budget. At tender prices, both vaccines were cost-saving. At market prices, cost-effectiveness differed with thresholds used. At market price, using 'CMH thresholds', Rotarix programmes were cost-effective and RotaTeq were not cost-effective from the healthcare provider's perspective, while both vaccines were cost-effective from the societal perspective. Using other CETs, both vaccines were not cost-effective at market price, from the healthcare provider's and societal perspectives. At tender and cost-effective prices, rotavirus vaccination cost ∼1 and 3% of the public health budget, respectively. Using locally defined thresholds, rotavirus vaccination is cost-effective at vaccine prices in line with international tenders, but not at market prices. Thresholds representing marginal productivity are likely to be lower than those reflecting human capital and individual preference measures, and may be useful in determining affordable vaccine prices.
    Matched MeSH terms: Rotavirus Vaccines/administration & dosage
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links